IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi, S/o. Shahul Hameed and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Superintendent Of Police, National Investigation Agency and Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A No.139 Of 2024, Crl. A. No.1441 Of 2023, Crl. A. No.1600 Of 2023, Crl. A. No.619 Of 2024, Crl. A. No.620 Of 2024, Crl. A. No.623 Of 2024, Crl. A. No.628 Of 2024
Decided On : 25-06-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. murder investigation related to conspiracy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. bail principles and rights under the ua(p) act. (Para 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court's decisions on bail applications. (Para 39 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The appellants before us impugn the orders passed by the Special Court for the Trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam, in S.C.No.02/2023/NIA/KOC, that denied them bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by relying on the provisions of Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [hereinafter referred to as the “UA (P) Act”].
Background facts:
3. In connection with the murder of an RSS worker Srinivasan, at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala, on 16.04.2022, allegedly by members of the Popular Front of India [PFI] cadres, an FIR No.318/2022 dated 16.04.2022 was registered at Palakkad Town South Police Station under Sections 120B, 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212, 302 read with 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3 (a)(b)(d) read with 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. Pursuant to the investigation conducted in the said case, 51 persons were arraigned as accused by the State and 44 among them were arrested. One among those arrested died and 7 of the accused persons could not be arrested because they were absconding. The Investigation Officer of the Town South Police Station, Palakkad filed charge sheets against 44 accused in two phases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Palakkad. The charge sheet against 26 accused was filed on 13.07.2022 and the charge sheet against the remaining 18 accused was filed on 12.12.2022. The case was committed to the Sessions Court Palakkad and numbered as S.C.No.982 of 2022. Insofar as the absconding accused were concerned, the case was kept pending before the JFMC-III, Palakkad as C.P.No.41/2022 and C.P.No.61/2022.
4. While so, based on information received by the Central Government that the office bearers and cadres of PFI and its affiliates in Kerala have conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise its cadres to commit terrorist acts in the State of Kerala and various other parts of the country, the National Investigation Agency [NIA] was directed by an order dated 16.09.2022 passed under Section 6 (5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 to take up and investigate the case against the accused mentioned in the said order. Immediately, thereafter an FIR No.RC-02/2022/NIA/KOC dated 19.09.2022 was registered at the NIA Police Station, Kochi against the same accused, under Sections 120B and 153A of the IPC read with Sections 13 , 18, 18B, 38 and 39 of the UA (P) Act, 1967. The individual accused aforementioned were thereafter arrested on 26.09.2022. Two days later, on 28.09.2022, the Central Government declared PFI as an unlawful Association.
5. On 14.12.2022, a report was submitted before the Special Court in Crime No.RC 02/2022/NIA/KOC for extending the period of judicial custody of the accused mentioned therein beyond 90 days and upto 180 days. Shortly thereafter, by an order dated 19.12.2022, the Central Government, in continuation of its order dated 16.09.2022, and placing reliance on a report dated 13.12.2022 of the NIA that stated that FIR No.318/2022 dated 16.04.2022 registered at Palakkad Town South Police Station relating to the murder of RSS worker Srinivasan by PFI cadres at Palakkad on 16.04.2022 is a connected offence with RC-02/2022/NIA/KOC of the NIA, opined that since it appeared from both the aforementioned cases that there is a larger conspiracy hatched by the leaders of PFI whose involvement is noticed by the presence of senior leaders in Palakkad on the day of the murder of Srinivasan, where the conspiracy was hatched, the FIR No.318/2022, which has grave national and international ramifications needed to be thoroughly investigated to unearth the wider conspiracy and t
National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Thwaha Fasal and Another v. Union of India and Another
Union of India (UOI) v. K.A. Najeeb
Vernon v. State of Maharashtra
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others
Amar Singh Yadav and Others v. Shanti Devi and Others
State of Haryana v. Nauratta Singh
State of UP through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
Kaushal Kishore v. State of U.P.
Thwaha Fasal & Anr. v. UOI & Anr.
Under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, bail is to be denied where prima facie evidence substantiates serious accusations of terrorism, while less compelling evidence may warrant bail.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial may necessitate bail, especially when trial completion is unlikely, balancing the severity of allegations with the accused's rights under Article 21.
The court emphasized that in terrorism-related cases, the gravity of charges and evidence against the accused necessitate denial of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing constitutional rights over statutory restrictions.
The court emphasized that constitutional rights to liberty prevail when trials are unduly prolonged, allowing bail despite serious terrorism charges.
The court may grant bail despite statutory restrictions under the UAPA if the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is infringed due to prolonged detention without reasonable trial prosp....
(1) Grant of bail – Question of discarding material or document at stage of considering bail application of accused on the ground of being not reliable or inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible....
Bail cannot be granted for offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 unless Court comes to conclusion that there is no prima facie case against accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.